Court case
Nevada v. Hicks
A tribal court had no jurisdiction over state game wardens sued for searching a tribal member's home for an off-reservation crime.
- Citation
- 533 U.S. 353 (2001)
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Year
- 2001
- Nations
- Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes
- Treaty at issue
- none
- Effect on land rights
- eroded
What happened
Hicks is a member of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes of western Nevada and lives on the Tribes' reservation. State game wardens suspected him of having killed a California bighorn sheep off the reservation, a gross misdemeanor under Nevada law. A state judge issued a search warrant for his home that was "subject to obtaining approval from the Fallon Tribal Court," and the wardens executed state-court and tribal-court warrants.
Hicks then sued the wardens in their individual capacities, and Nevada, in Tribal Court. He alleged trespass, abuse of process, and violation of constitutional rights remediable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Tribal Court held that it had jurisdiction, and the Tribal Appeals Court affirmed. The wardens and the State went to federal court, which held for Hicks on that issue. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the fact that Hicks's home is on tribe-owned reservation land is sufficient to support tribal jurisdiction over civil claims against nonmembers.
The Supreme Court reversed, in an opinion by Justice Scalia. It held the Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the wardens' alleged conduct in executing a search warrant for an off-reservation crime. A tribal court's adjudicatory authority over nonmembers is "at most as broad as the tribe's regulatory authority." The Montana rule applies to both Indian and non-Indian land, and "tribal ownership is not alone enough to support regulatory jurisdiction over nonmembers."
The Court also said that tribal authority to regulate state officers executing process for off-reservation violations of state law is not essential to tribal self-government. Justice Souter, joined by two others, concurred in the opinion; Justices O'Connor, Stevens and Breyer concurred in the judgment.
Good to know. All nine justices agreed on the result, but they split on the reasoning.
Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error
What the sources say, and how this was checked
Well supported by the sources below.
tribal ownership is not alone enough to support regulatory jurisdiction over nonmembers
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)the Ninth Circuit concluded that the fact that Hicks's home is on tribe-owned reservation land is sufficient
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)Tribal authority to regulate state officers in executing process related to the off-reservation violation of state laws is not essential to tribal self-government
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
Research notes. All nine justices agreed on the judgment, but the reasoning was split: Justice O'Connor wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment (joined by Justices Stevens and Breyer), and Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Breyer) concurred in the judgment, so the lineup is split on reasoning. The opinion refers to the wardens' alleged conduct; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Who is doing the work
This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:
- Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
- Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation
- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation
- Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band; and Wells Band)
Native legal and land defense, nationally
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
- NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.
Connections
Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.
Doctrine applied 3
Policy era 1
Nations named 1
- Shoshone (Shoshoni)suggested
Sources
- supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/353/legal text copy
The record’s fields
- Holding
- Tribal courts lacked jurisdiction over tort and civil-rights claims against state game wardens who executed a search warrant at a tribal member's reservation home for an off-reservation offense; extends Montana to tribal-member land.
- Kind
- Court case
- Confidence
- High